Centesimus Annus

THE CENTENARY OF THE PROMULGATION of the encyclical which begins with
the words "Rerum Novarum,"[1] by my predecessor of venerable memory
Pope
Leo XIII, is an occasion of great importance for the present history of
the Church and for my own pontificate. It is an encyclical that has the
distinction of having been commemorated by solemn papal documents from
its fortieth anniversary to its ninetieth. It may be said that its path
through history has been marked by other documents which paid tribute to
it and applied it to the circumstances of the day.[2]

In doing likewise for the hundredth anniversary, in response to requests
from many bishops, Church institutions, and study centers, as well as
business leaders and workers, both individually and as members of
associations, I wish first and foremost to satisfy the debt of gratitude
which the whole Church owes to this great Pope and his "immortal
document."[3] I also mean to show that the vital energies rising from
that root have not been spent with the passing of the years, but rather
have increased even more. This is evident from the various initiatives
which have preceded, and which are to accompany and follow the
celebration, initiatives promoted by episcopal conferences, by
international agencies, universities and academic institutes, by
professional associations and by other institutions and individuals in
many parts of the world.

2. The present encyclical is part of these celebrations, which are meant
to thank God--the origin of "every good endowment and every perfect gift"
(Jan 1:17)--for having used a document published a century ago by the See
of Peter to achieve so much good and to radiate so much light in the
Church and in the world. Although the commemoration at hand is meant to
honor Rerum Novarum, it also honors those encyclicals and other
documents
of my predecessors which have helped to make Pope Leo's encyclical
present and alive in history, thus constituting what would come to be
called the Church's "social doctrine," "social teaching" or even "social
magisterium."

The validity of this teaching has already been pointed out in two
encyclicals published during my pontificate: Laborem Exercens on human
work, and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis on current problems regarding the
development of individuals and peoples.[4]

3. I now wish to propose a "rereading" of Pope Leo's encyclical by
issuing an invitation to "look back" at the text itself in order to
discover anew the richness of the fundamental principles which it
formulated for dealing with the question of the condition of workers. But
this is also an invitation to "look around" at the "new things" which
surround us and in which we find ourselves caught up, very different from
the "new things" which characterized the final decade of the last
century. Finally, it is an invitation to "look to the future" at a time
when we can already glimpse the third millennium of the Christian era, so
filled with uncertainties but also with promises--uncertainties and
promises which appeal to our imagination and creativity, and which
reawaken our responsibility, as disciples of the "one teacher" (cf. Mt
23:8), to show the way, to proclaim the truth and to communicate the life
which is Christ (cf. Jn 14:6).

A rereading of this kind will not only confirm the permanent value of
such teaching, but will also manifest the true meaning of the Church's
Tradition which, being ever living and vital, builds upon the foundation
laid by our fathers in the faith, and particularly upon what "the
Apostles passed down to the Church"[5] in the name of Jesus Christ, who
is her irreplaceable foundation (cf. 1 Cor 3:11).

It was out of an awareness of his mission as the successor of Peter that
Pope Leo XIII proposed to speak out, and Peter's successor today is moved
by that same awareness. Like Pope Leo and the popes before and after
him,
I take my inspiration from the Gospel image of "the scribe who has been
trained for the kingdom of heaven," whom the Lord compares to "a
householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old"
(Mt 13:52). The treasure is the great outpouring of the Church's
Tradition, which contains "what is old"--received and passed on from the
very beginning--and which enables us to interpret the "new things" in the
midst of which the life of the Church and the world unfolds.

Among the things which become "old" as a result of being incorporated
into Tradition, and which offer opportunities and material for enriching
both Tradition and the life of faith, there is the fruitful activity of
many millions of people, who, spurred on by the social Magisterium, have
sought to make that teaching the inspiration for their involvement in the
world. Acting either as individuals or joined together in various groups,
associations and organizations, these people represent a great movement
for the defense of the human person and the safeguarding of human
dignity. Amid changing historical circumstances, this movement has
contributed to the building up of a more just society or at least to the
curbing of injustice.

The present encyclical seeks to show the fruitfulness of the principles
enunciated by Leo XIII, which belong to the Church's doctrinal patrimony
and, as such, involve the exercise of her teaching authority. But
pastoral solicitude also prompts me to propose an analysis of some events
of recent history. It goes without saying that part of the responsibility
of pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to
discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis
is not meant to pass definitive judgments, since this does not fall per
se within the Magisterium's specific domain.

4. Towards the end of the last century the Church found herself facing an
historical process which had already been taking place for some time, but
which was by then reaching a critical point. The determining factor in
this process was a combination of radical changes which had taken place
in the political, economic and social fields, and in the areas of science
and technology, to say nothing of the wide influence of the prevailing
ideologies. In the sphere of politics, the result of these changes was a
new conception of society and of the State, and consequently of authority
itself A traditional society was passing away and another was beginning
to be formed--one which brought the hope of new freedoms but also the
threat of new forms of injustice and servitude.

In the sphere of economics, in which scientific discoveries and their
practical application come together, new structures for the production of
consumer goods had progressively taken shape. A new form of property
had
appeared--capital; and a new form of labor--labor for wages,
characterized by high rates of production which lacked due regard for
sex, age or family situation, and were determined solely by efficiency,
with a view to increasing profits.

In this way labor became a commodity to be freely bought and sold on the
market, its price determined by the law of supply and demand, without
taking into account the bare minimum required for the support of the
individual and his family. Moreover, the worker was not even sure of
being able to sell "his own commodity," continually threatened as he was
by unemployment, which, in the absence of any kind of social security,
meant the specter of death by starvation.

The result of this transformation was a society "divided into two
classes, separated by a deep chasm."[6] This situation was linked to the
marked change taking place in the political order already mentioned. Thus
the prevailing political theory of the time sought to promote total
economic freedom by appropriate laws, or, conversely, by a deliberate
lack of any intervention. At the same time, another conception of
property and economic life was beginning to appear in an organized and
often violent form, one which implied a new political and social
structure.

At the height of this clash, when people finally began to realize fully
the very grave injustice of social realities in many places and the
danger of a revolution fanned by ideals which were then called
"socialist," Pope Leo XIII intervened with a document which dealt in a
systematic way with the "condition of the workers." The encyclical had
been preceded by others devoted to teachings of a political character;
still others would appear later.[7] Here, particular mention must be made
of the encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, which called attention to
the essential bond between human freedom and truth, so that freedom
which
refused to be bound to the truth would fall into arbitrariness and end up
submitting itself to the vilest of passions, to the point of
self-destruction. Indeed, what is the origin of all the evils to which
Rerum Novarum wished to respond, if not a kind of freedom which, in the
area of economic and social activity, cuts itself off from the truth
about humanity?

The Pope also drew inspiration from the teaching of his predecessors, as
well as from the many documents issued by bishops, from scientific
studies promoted by members of the laity, from the work of Catholic
movements and associations and from the Church's practical achievements
in the social field during the second half of the nineteenth century.

5. The "new things" to which the Pope devoted his attention were anything
but positive. The first paragraph of the encyclical describes in strong
terms the "new things" (rerum novarum) which gave it its name: "That the
spirit of revolutionary change which has long been disturbing the nations
of the world should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made
its influence felt in the related sphere of practical economics is not
surprising. Progress in industry, the development of new trades, the
changing relationship between employers and workers, the enormous
wealth
of a few as opposed to the poverty of the many, the increasing self
reliance of the workers and their closer association with each other, as
well as a notable decline in morality: all these elements have led to the
conflict now taking place."[8]

The Pope and the Church with him were confronted, as was the civil
community, by a society which was torn by a conflict all the more harsh
and inhumane because it knew no rule or regulation. It was the conflict
between capital and labor, or--as the encyclical puts it--the worker
question. It is precisely about this conflict, in the very pointed terms
in which it then appeared, that the Pope did not hesitate to speak.

Here we find the first reflection for our times as suggested by the
encyclical. In the face of a conflict which set man against man, almost
as if they were "wolves," a conflict between the extremes of mere
physical survival on the one side and opulence on the other, the Pope did
not hesitate to intervene by virtue of his "apostolic office,"[9] that
is, on the basis of the mission received from Jesus Christ himself to
"feed his lambs and tend his sheep" (of. Jn 21:15-17), and to "bind and
loose" on earth for the kingdom of heaven (of. Mt 16:19). The Pope's
intention was certainly to restore peace, and the present-day reader
cannot fail to note his severe condemnation, in no uncertain terms, of
the class struggle.[10]

However, the Pope was very much aware that peace is built on the
foundation of justice: what was essential to the encyclical was precisely
its proclamation of the fundamental conditions for justice in the
economic and social situation of the time.[11]

In this way, Pope Leo XIII, in the footsteps of his predecessors, created
a lasting paradigm for the Church. The Church, in fact, has something to
say about specific human situations, both individual and communal,
national and international. She formulates a genuine doctrine for these
situations, a corpus which enables her to analyze social realities, to
make judgments about them and to indicate directions to be taken for the
just resolution of the problems involved.

In Pope Leo XIII's time such a concept of the Church's right and duty was
far from being commonly admitted. Indeed, a twofold approach prevailed:
one directed to this world and this life, to which faith ought to remain
extraneous; the other directed towards a purely other-worldly salvation,
which neither enlightens nor directs existence on earth. The Pope's
approach in publishing Rerum Novarum gave the Church "citizenship
status"
as it were, amid the changing realities of public life, and this standing
would be more fully confirmed later on. In effect, to teach and to spread
her social doctrine pertains to the Church's evangelizing mission and is
an essential part of the Christian message, since this doctrine points
out the direct consequences of that message in the life of society and
situates daily work and struggles for justice in the context of bearing
witness to Christ the Savior. This doctrine is likewise a source of unity
and peace in dealing with the conflicts which inevitably arise in social
and economic life. Thus it is possible to meet these new situations
without degrading the human person's transcendent dignity, either in
oneself or in one's adversaries, and to direct those situations towards
just solutions.

Today, at a distance of a hundred years, the validity of this approach
affords me the opportunity to contribute to the development of Christian
social doctrine. The "new evangelization," which the modern world
urgently needs and which I have emphasized many times, must include
among
its essential elements a proclamation of the Church's social doctrine. As
in the days of Pope Leo XIII, this doctrine is still suitable for
indicating the right way to respond to the great challenges of today,
when ideologies are being increasingly discredited. Now, as then, we need
to repeat that there can be no genuine solution of the "social question"
apart from the Gospel, and that the "new things" can find in the Gospel
the context for their correct understanding and the proper moral
perspective for judgment on them.

6. With the intention of shedding light on the conflict which had arisen
between capital and labor, Pope Leo XIII affirmed the fundamental rights
of workers. Indeed, the key to reading the encyclical is the dignity of
the worker as such, and, for the same reason, the dignity of work, which
is defined as follows: "to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what
is necessary for the various purposes of life, and first of all for
self-preservation."[12] The Pope describes work as "personal, inasmuch
as the energy expended is bound up with the personality and is the
exclusive property of him who acts, and, furthermore, was given to him
for his advantage."[13] Work thus belongs to the vocation of every
person; indeed, a human being expresses and fulfills himself by working.
At the same time, work has a "social" dimension through its intimate
relationship not only to the family, but also to the common good, since
"it may truly be said that it is only by the labor of working men that
states grow rich.'[14] These are themes that I have taken up and
developed in my encyclical Laborem Exercens.[15]

Another important principle is undoubtedly that of the right to "private
property."[16] The amount of space devoted to this subject in the
encyclical shows the importance attached to it. The Pope is well aware
that private property is not an absolute value, nor does he fail to
proclaim the necessary complementary principles, such as the universal
destination of the earth's goods.[17]

On the other hand, it is certainly true that the type of private property
which Leo XIII mainly considers is land ownership.[18] But this does not
mean that the reasons adduced to safeguard private property or to affirm
the right to possess the things necessary for one's personal development
and the development of one's family, whatever the concrete form which
that right may assume, are not still valid today. This is something which
must be affirmed once more in the face of the changes we are witnessing
in systems formerly dominated by collective ownership of the means of
production, as well as in the face of the increasing instances of poverty
or, more precisely, of hindrances to private ownership in many parts of
the world, including those where systems predominate which are based on
an affirmation of the right to private property. As a result of these
changes and of the persistence of poverty, a deeper analysis of the
problem is called for, an analysis which will be developed later in this
document.

7. In close connection with the right to private property, Pope Leo
XIII's encyclical also affirms other rights as inalienable and proper to
the human person. Prominent among these, because of the space which the
Pope devotes to it and the importance which he attaches to it, is the
"natural human right" to form private associations. This means above all
the right to establish professional associations of employers and
workers, or of workers alone.[19] Here we find the reason for the
Church's defense and approval of the establishment of what are commonly
called trade unions: certainly not because of ideological prejudices or
in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the right of
association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore
precedes his or her incorporation into political society. Indeed, the
formation of unions "cannot..be prohibited by the State," because "the
State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and if it
forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very
principle of its own existence."[20]

Together with this right, which--it must be stressed--the Pope explicitly
acknowledges as belonging to workers, or, using his own language, to "the
working class," the encyclical affirms just as clearly the right to the
"limitation of working hours," the right to legitimate rest and the right
of children and women[21] to be treated differently with regard to the
type and duration of work.

If we keep in mind what history tells us about the practices permitted or
at least not excluded by law regarding the way in which workers were
employed, without any guarantees as to working hours or the hygienic
conditions of the workplace, or even regarding the age and sex of
apprentices, we can appreciate the Pope's severe statement: "It is
neither just nor human so to grind men down with excessive labor as to
stupefy their minds and wear out their bodies." And referring to the
"contract" aimed at putting into effect "labor relations" of this sort,
he affirms with greater precision that "in all agreements between
employers and workers there is always the condition expressed or
understood" that proper rest be allowed, proportionate to "the wear and
tear of one's strength." He then concludes: "To agree in any other sense
would be against what is right and just."[22]

8. The Pope immediately adds another right which the worker has as a
person. This is the right to a "just wage," which cannot be left to the
"free consent of the parties, so that the employer, having paid what was
agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do
anything beyond."[23] It was said at the time that the State does not
have the power to intervene in the terms of these contracts, except to
ensure the fulfillment of what had been explicitly agreed upon. This
concept of relations between employers and employees. purely pragmatic
and inspired by a thoroughgoing individualism. is severely censured in
the encyclical as contrary to the twofold nature of work as a personal
and necessary reality. For if work as something personal belongs to the
sphere of the individual's free use of his own abilities and energy, as
something necessary it is governed by the grave obligation of every
individual to ensure "the preservation of life." "It necessarily
follows," the Pope concludes, "that every individual has a natural right
to procure what is required to live; and the poor can procure that in no
other way than by what they can earn through their work."[24]

A workman's wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself,
his wife and his children. "If through necessity or fear of a worse evil
the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor
will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice."[25]

Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called
"unbridled capitalism" was pressing forward, should not have to be
repeated today with the same severity. Unfortunately, even today one
finds instances of contracts between employers and employees which lack
reference to the most elementary justice regarding the employment of
children or women, working hours, the hygienic condition of the workplace
and fair pay; and this is the case despite the international declarations
and conventions on the subject[26] and the internal laws of states. The
Pope attributed to the "public authority" the "strict duty" of providing
properly for the welfare of the workers, because a failure to do so
violates justice; indeed, he did not hesitate to speak of "distributive
justice."[27]

9. To these rights Pope Leo XIII adds another right regarding the
condition of the working class, one which I wish to mention because of
its importance: namely, the right to discharge freely one's religious
duties. The Pope wished to proclaim this right within the context of the
other rights and duties of workers, notwithstanding the general opinion,
even in his day, that such questions pertained exclusively to an
individual's private life. He affirms the need for Sunday rest so that
people may turn their thoughts to heavenly things and to the worship
which they owe to Almighty God.[28] No one can take away this human
right, which is based on a commandment; in the words of the Pope: "no man
may with impunity violate that human dignity which God himself treats
with great reverence," and consequently, the State must guarantee to the
worker the exercise of this freedom.[29]

It would not be mistaken to see in this clear statement a springboard for
the principle of the right to religious freedom, which was to become the
subject of many solemn international declarations and conventions,[30] as
well as of the Second Vatican Council's well-known declaration and of my
own repeated teaching.[31] In this regard, one may ask whether existing
laws and the practice of industrialized societies effectively ensure in
our own day the exercise of this basic right to Sunday rest.

10. Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own day,
is the concept of the relationship between the State and its citizens.
Rerum Novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and
liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property
is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is not the subject of
a special section, but it is worth noting that criticisms of it are
raised in the treatment of the duties of the State.[32] The State cannot
limit itself to "favoring one portion of the citizens," namely the rich
and prosperous, nor can it "neglect the other," which clearly represents
the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that
law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due.
"When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the
defenseless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The
richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need
of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of
their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of
the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly
belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected
by the government."[33]

These passages are relevant today, especially in the face of the new
forms of poverty in the world, and also because they are affirmations
which do not depend on a specific notion of the State or on a particular
political theory. Leo XIII is repeating an elementary principle of sound
political organization, namely, the more that individuals are defenseless
within a given society, the more they require the care and concern of
others, and in particular the intervention of governmental authority.

In this way what we nowadays call the principle of solidarity, the
validity of which both in the internal order of each nation and in the
international order I have discussed in the encyclical Sollicitudo Rei
Socialis,[34] is clearly seen to be one of the fundamental principles of
the Christian view of social and political organization. This principle
is frequently stated by Pope Leo XIII, who uses the term "friendship," a
concept already found in Greek philosophy. Pope Pius XI refers to it with
the equally meaningful term "social charity." Pope Paul VI, expanding the
concept to cover the many modern aspects of the social question, speaks
of a "civilization of love."[35]

11. Rereading the encyclical in the light of contemporary realities
enables us to appreciate the Church's constant concern for and dedication
to categories of people who are especially beloved to the Lord Jesus. The
contents of the text is an excellent testimony to the continuity within
the Church of the so-called "preferential option for the poor," an option
which I defined as a "special form of primacy in the exercise of
Christian charity."[36] Pope Leo's encyclical on the "condition of the
workers" is thus an encyclical on the poor and on the terrible conditions
to which the new and often violent process of industrialization had
reduced great multitudes of people. Today, in many parts of the world,
similar processes of economic, social and political transformation are
creating the same evils.

If Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy the condition of the poor
in accordance with justice, he does so because of his timely awareness
that the State has the duty of watching over the common good and of
ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the economic
one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful
autonomy of each sector. This should not however lead us to think that
Pope Leo expected the State to solve every social problem. On the
contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the State's
intervention and on its instrumental character, inasmuch as the
individual, the family and society are prior to the State, and inasmuch
as the State exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle
them.[37]

The relevance of these reflections for our own day is inescapable. It
will be useful to return later to this important subject of the limits
inherent in the nature of the State. For now, the points which have been
emphasized (certainly not the only ones in the encyclical) are situated
in continuity with the Church's social teaching, and in the light of a
sound view of private property, work, the economic process, the reality
of the State and, above all, of the person himself. Other themes will be
mentioned later when we examine certain aspects of the contemporary
situation. From this point forward it will be necessary to keep in mind
that the main thread and, in a certain sense, the guiding principle of
Pope Leo's encyclical, and of all of the Church's social doctrine, is a
correct view of the human person and of the person's unique value,
inasmuch as the human being "..is the only creature on earth which God
willed for itself."[38] God has imprinted his own image and likeness on
human beings (cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon them an incomparable
dignity, as the encyclical frequently insists. In effect, beyond the
rights which one acquires by one's own work, there exist rights which do
not correspond to any work performed, but which flow from one's essential
dignity as a person.

12. The commemoration of Rerum Novarum would be incomplete unless
reference were also made to the situation of the world today. The
document lends itself to such a reference, because the historical picture
and the prognosis which it suggests have proved to be surprisingly
accurate in the light of what has happened since then.

This is especially confirmed by the events which took place near the end
of 1989 and at the beginning of 1990. These events, and the radical
transformations which followed, can only be explained by the preceding
situations which, to a certain extent, crystallized or institutionalized
Leo XIII's predictions and the increasingly disturbing signs noted by his
successors. Pope Leo foresaw the negative consequences--political, social
and economic--of the social order proposed by "socialism," which at that
time was still only a social philosophy and not yet a fully structured
movement. It may seem surprising that "socialism" appeared at the
beginning of the Pope's critique of solutions to the "question of the
working class" at a time when "socialism" was not yet in the form of a
strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as
was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the
masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution
to the "question of the working class" of the time--all the more so when
one considers the terrible situation of injustice in which the working
classes of the recently industrialized nations found themselves.

Two things must be emphasized here: first, the great clarity in
perceiving, in all its harshness, the actual condition of the working
class--men, women and children; secondly, equal clarity in recognizing
the evil of a solution which, by appearing to reverse the positions of
the poor and the rich, was in reality detrimental to the very people whom
it was meant to help. The remedy would prove worse than the sickness. By
defining the nature of the socialism of his day as the suppression of
private property, Leo XIII arrived at the crux of the problem.

His words deserve to be reread attentively: "To remedy these wrongs [the
unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers], the
socialists encourage the poor man's envy of the rich and strive to do
away with private property, contending that individual possessions should
become the common property of all...; but their contentions are so
clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into
effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They
are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful
possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion
in the community."[39] The evils caused by the setting up of this type of
socialism as a state system--what would later be called "Real
Socialism"--could not be better expressed.

13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said
in the encyclicals Laborem Exercens and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, we have
to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in
nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a
molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual
is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socioeconomic
mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual
can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and
exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil.
Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept
of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the
very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken
conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which
defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to
private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his
own," and of the possibility of earning a living through his own
initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who
control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his
dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an
authentic human community.

In contrast, from the Christian vision of the human person there
necessarily follows a correct picture of society. According to Rerum
Novarum and the whole social doctrine of the Church, the social nature of
man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in various
intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including economic,
social, political and cultural groups which stem from human nature itself
and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the common good. This
is what I have called the "subjectivity" of society which, together with
the subjectivity of the individual, was cancelled out by "Real
Socialism."[40]

If we then inquire as to the source of this mistaken concept of the
nature of the person and the "subjectivity" of society, we must reply
that its first cause is atheism. It is by responding to the call of God
contained in the being of things that man becomes aware of his
transcendent dignity. Every individual must give this response, which
constitutes the apex of his humanity, and no social mechanism or
collective subject can substitute for it. The denial of God deprives the
person of his foundation, and consequently leads to a reorganization of
the social order without reference to the person's dignity and
responsibility.

The atheism of which we are speaking is also closely connected with the
rationalism of the Enlightenment, which views human and social reality in
a mechanistic way. Thus there is a denial of the supreme insight
concerning man's true greatness, his transcendence in respect to earthly
realities, the contradiction in his heart between the desire for the
fullness of what is good and his own inability to attain it and, above
all, the need for salvation which results from this situation.

14. From the same atheistic source, socialism also derives its choice of
the means of action condemned in Rerum Novarum, namely, class struggle.
The Pope does not, of course, intend to condemn every possible form of
social conflict. The Church is well aware that in the course of history
conflicts of interest between different social groups inevitably arise,
and that in the face of such conflicts Christians must often take a
position, honestly and decisively. The encyclical Laborem Exercens
moreover clearly recognized the positive role of conflict when it takes
the form of a "struggle for social justice";[41] Quadragesimo Anno had
already stated that "if the class struggle abstains from enmities and
mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of
differences founded on a desire for justice."[42]

However, what is condemned in class struggle is the idea that conflict is
not restrained by ethical or juridical considerations, or by respect for
the dignity of others (and consequently of oneself); a reasonable
compromise is thus excluded, and what is pursued is not the general good
of society, but a partisan interest which replaces the common good and
sets out to destroy whatever stands in its way. In a word, it is a
question of transferring to the sphere of internal conflict between
social groups the doctrine of "total war," which the militarism and
imperialism of that time brought to bear on international relations. As a
result of this doctrine, the search for a proper balance between the
interests of the various nations was replaced by attempts to impose the
absolute domination of one's own side through the destruction of the
other side's capacity to resist, using every possible means, not
excluding the use of lies, terror tactics against citizens, and weapons
of utter destruction (which precisely in those years were beginning to be
designed). Therefore class struggle in the Marxist sense and militarism
have the same root, namely, atheism and contempt for the human person,
which place the principle of force above that of reason and law.

15. Rerum Novarum is opposed to state control of the means of production,
which would reduce every citizen to being a "cog" in the state machine.
It is no less forceful in criticizing a concept of the State which
completely excludes the economic sector from the State's range of
interest and action. There is certainly a legitimate sphere of autonomy
in economic life which the State should not enter. The State, however,
has the task of determining the juridical framework within which economic
affairs are to be conducted, and thus of safeguarding the prerequisites
of a free economy, which presumes a certain equality between the parties,
such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the
other to subservience.[43]

In this regard, Rerum Novarum points the way to just reforms which can
restore dignity to work as the free activity of man. These reforms imply
that society and the State will both assume responsibility, especially
for protecting the worker from the nightmare of unemployment.
Historically, this has happened in two converging ways: either through
economic policies aimed at ensuring balanced growth and full employment,
or through unemployment insurance and retraining programs capable of
ensuring a smooth transfer of workers from crisis sectors to those in
expansion.

Furthermore, society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for
the maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain amount
for savings. This requires a continuous effort to improve workers'
training and capability so that their work will be more skilled and
productive, as well as careful controls and adequate legislative measures
to block shameful forms of exploitation, especially to the disadvantage
of the most vulnerable workers, of immigrants and of those on the margins
of society. The role of trade unions in negotiating minimum salaries and
working conditions is decisive in this area.

Finally, "humane" working hours and adequate free-time need to be
guaranteed, as well as the right to express one's own personality at the
workplace without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal
dignity. This is the place to mention once more the role of trade unions,
not only in negotiating contracts, but also as "places" where workers can
express themselves. They serve the development of an authentic culture of
work and help workers to share in a fully human way in the life of their
place of employment.[44]

The State must contribute to the achievement of these goals both directly
and indirectly. Indirectly and according to the principle of
subsidiarity, by creating favorable conditions for the free exercise of
economic activity, which will lead to abundant opportunities for
employment and sources of wealth. Directly and according to the principle
of solidarity, by defending the weakest, by placing certain limits on the
autonomy of the parties who determine working conditions, and by ensuring
in every case the necessary minimum support for the unemployed
worker.[45]

The encyclical and the related social teaching of the Church had
far-reaching influence in the years bridging the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. This influence is evident in the numerous reforms which were
introduced in the areas of social security, pensions, health insurance
and compensation in the case of accidents, within the framework of
greater respect for the rights of workers.[46]

16. These reforms were carried out in part by states, but in the struggle
to achieve them the role of the workers' movement was an important one.
This movement, which began as a response of moral conscience to unjust
and harmful situations, conducted a widespread campaign for reform, far
removed from vague ideology and closer to the daily needs of workers. In
this context its efforts were often joined to those of Christians in
order to improve workers' living conditions. Later on, this movement was
dominated to a certain extent by the Marxist ideology against which Rerum
Novarum had spoken.

These same reforms were also partly the result of an open process by
which society organized itself through the establishment of effective
instruments of solidarity, which were capable of sustaining an economic
growth more respectful of the values of the person. Here we should
remember the numerous efforts to which Christians made a notable
contribution in establishing producers', consumers' and credit
cooperatives, in promoting general education and professional training,
in experimenting with various forms of participation in the life of the
workplace and in the life of society in general.

Thus, as we look at the past, there is good reason to thank God that the
great encyclical was not without an echo in human hearts and indeed led
to a generous response on the practical level. Still, we must acknowledge
that its prophetic message was not fully accepted by people at the time.
Precisely for this reason there ensued some very serious tragedies.

17. Reading the encyclical within the context of Pope Leo's whole
magisterium,[47] we see how it points essentially to the socioeconomic
consequences of an error which has even greater implications. As has been
mentioned, this error consists in an understanding of human freedom which
detaches it from obedience to the truth, and consequently from the duty
to respect the rights of others. The essence of freedom then becomes
self-love carried to the point of contempt for God and neighbor, a
self-love which leads to an unbridled affirmation of self-interest and
which refuses to be limited by any demand of justice.[48]

This very error had extreme consequences in the tragic series of wars
which ravaged Europe and the world between 1914 and 1945. Some of
these
resulted from militarism and exaggerated nationalism, and from related
forms of totalitarianism; some derived from the class struggle; still
others were civil wars or wars of an ideological nature. Without the
terrible burden of hatred and resentment which had built up as a result
of so many injustices both on the international level and within
individual states, such cruel wars would not have been possible, in which
great nations invested their energies and in which there was no
hesitation to violate the most sacred human rights, with the
extermination of entire peoples and social groups being planned and
carried out. Here we recall the Jewish people in particular, whose
terrible fate has become a symbol of the aberration of which man is
capable when he turns against God.

However, it is only when hatred and injustice are sanctioned and
organized by the ideologies based on them, rather than on the truth about
the human person, that they take possession of entire nations and drive
them to act.[49] Rerum Novarum opposed ideologies of hatred and showed
how violence and resentment could be overcome by justice. May the
memory
of those terrible events guide the actions of everyone, particularly the
leaders of nations in our own time, when other forms of injustice are
fueling new hatreds and when new ideologies which exalt violence are
appearing on the horizon.

18. While it is true that since 1945 weapons have been silent on the
European continent, it must be remembered that true peace is never simply
the result of military victory, but rather implies both the removal of
the causes of war and genuine reconciliation between peoples. For many
years there has been in Europe and the world a situation of non-war
rather than genuine peace. Half of the continent fell under the
domination of a Communist dictatorship, while the other half organized
itself in defense against this threat. Many peoples lost the ability to
control their own destiny and were enclosed within the suffocating
boundaries of an empire in which efforts were made to destroy their
historical memory and the centuries-old roots of their culture. As a
result of this violent division of Europe, enormous masses of people were
compelled to leave their homeland or were forcibly deported.

An insane arms race swallowed up the resources needed for the
development
of national economies and for assistance to the less developed nations.
Scientific and technological progress, which should have contributed to
man's well-being, was transformed into an instrument of war: science and
technology were directed to the production of ever more efficient and
destructive weapons. Meanwhile, an ideology, a perversion of authentic
philosophy, was called upon to provide doctrinal justification for the
new war. And this war was not simply expected and prepared for, but was
actually fought with enormous bloodshed in various parts of the world.
The logic of power blocs or empires, denounced in various Church
documents and recently in the encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,[50]
led to a situation in which controversies and disagreements among Third
World countries were systematically aggravated and exploited in order to
create difficulties for the adversary.

Extremist groups, seeking to resolve such controversies through the use
of arms, found ready political and military support and were equipped and
trained for war; those who tried to find peaceful and humane solutions,
with respect for the legitimate interests of all parties, remained
isolated and often fell victim to their opponents. In addition, the
precariousness of the peace which followed the Second World War was one
of the principal causes of the militarization of many Third World
countries and the fratricidal conflicts which afflicted them, as well as
of the spread of terrorism and of increasingly barbaric means of
political and military conflict. Moreover, the whole world was oppressed
by the threat of an atomic war capable of leading to the extinction of
humanity. Science used for military purposes had placed this decisive
instrument at the disposal of hatred, strengthened by ideology. But if
war can end without winners or losers in a suicide of humanity, then we
must repudiate the logic which leads to it: the idea that the effort to
destroy the enemy, confrontation and war itself are factors of progress
and historical advancement.[51] When the need for this repudiation is
understood, the concepts of "total war" and "class struggle" must
necessarily be called into question.

19. At the end of the Second World War, however, such a development was
still being formed in people's consciences. What received attention was
the spread of Communist totalitarianism over more than half of Europe and
over other parts of the world. The war, which should have reestablished
freedom and restored the right of nations, ended without having attained
these goals. Indeed, in a way, for many peoples, especially those which
had suffered most during the war, it openly contradicted these goals. It
may be said that the situation which arose has evoked different responses.

Following the destruction caused by the war, we see in some countries and
under certain aspects a positive effort to rebuild a democratic society
inspired by social justice, so as to deprive Communism of the
revolutionary potential represented by masses of people subjected to
exploitation and oppression. In general, such attempts endeavor to
preserve free market mechanisms, ensuring, by means of a stable currency
and the harmony of social relations, the conditions for steady and
healthy economic growth in which people through their own work can build
a better future for themselves and their families. At the same time,
these attempts try to avoid making market mechanisms the only point of
reference for social life, and they tend to subject them to public
control which upholds the principle of the common destination of material
goods. In this context, an abundance of work opportunities, a solid
system of social security and professional training, the freedom to join
trade unions and the effective action of unions, the assistance provided
in cases of unemployment, the opportunities for democratic participation
in the life of society--all these are meant to deliver work from the mere
condition of "a commodity," and to guarantee its dignity.

Then there are the other social forces and ideological movements which
oppose Marxism by setting up systems of "national security," aimed at
controlling the whole of society in a systematic way, in order to make
Marxist infiltration impossible. By emphasizing and increasing the power
of the State, they wish to protect their people from Communism, but in
doing so they run the grave risk of destroying the freedom and values of
the person, the very things for whose sake it is necessary to oppose
Communism.

Another kind of response, practical in nature, is represented by the
affluent society or the consumer society. It seeks to defeat Marxism on
the level of pure materialism by showing how a free market society can
achieve a greater satisfaction of material human needs than Communism,
while equally excluding spiritual values. In reality, while on the one
hand it is true that this social model shows the failure of Marxism to
contribute to a humane and better society, on the other hand, insofar as
it denies an autonomous existence and value to morality, law, culture and
religion, it agrees with Marxism, in the sense that it totally reduces
man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of material needs.

20. During the same period a widespread process of "decolonization"
occurred, by which many countries gained or regained their independence
and the right freely to determine their own destiny. With the formal
reacquisition of state sovereignty, however, these countries often find
themselves merely at the beginning of the journey towards the
construction of genuine independence. Decisive sectors of the economy
still remain de facto in the hands of large foreign companies which are
unwilling to commit themselves to the long-term development of the host
country. Political life itself is controlled by foreign powers, while
within the national boundaries there are tribal groups not yet
amalgamated into a genuine national community. Also lacking is a class of
competent professional people capable of running the state apparatus in
an honest and just way, nor are there qualified personnel for managing
the economy in an efficient and responsible manner.

Given this situation, many think that Marxism can offer a sort of
shortcut for building up the nation and the State; thus many variants of
socialism emerge with specific national characteristics. Legitimate
demands for national recovery, forms of nationalism and also of
militarism, principles drawn from ancient popular traditions (which are
sometimes in harmony with Christian social doctrine) and Marxist-Leninist
concepts and ideas--all these mingle in the many ideologies which take
shape in ways that differ from case to case.

21. Lastly, it should be remembered that after the Second World War, and
in reaction to its horrors, there arose a more lively sense of human
rights, which found recognition in a number of international
documents[52] and, one might say, in the drawing up of a new "right of
nations," to which the Holy See has constantly contributed. The focal
point of this evolution has been the United Nations Organization. Not
only has there been a development in awareness of the rights of
individuals, but also in awareness of the rights of nations, as well as a
clearer realization of the need to act in order to remedy the grave
imbalances that exist between the various geographical areas of the
world. In a certain sense, these imbalances have shifted the center of
the social question from the national to the international level.[53]

While noting this process with satisfaction, nevertheless one cannot
ignore the fact that the overall balance of the various policies of aid
for development has not always been positive. The United Nations,
moreover, has not yet succeeded in establishing, as alternatives to war,
effective means for the resolution of international conflicts. This seems
to be the most urgent problem which the international community has yet
to resolve.

22. It is on the basis of the world situation just described, and already
elaborated in the encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, that the
unexpected and promising significance of the events of recent years can
be understood. Although they certainly reached their climax in 1989 in
the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, they embrace a longer period
of time and a wider geographical area. In the course of the 80s, certain
dictatorial and oppressive regimes fell one by one in some countries of
Latin America and also of Africa and Asia. In other cases there began a
difficult but productive transition towards more participatory and more
just political structures. An important, even decisive, contribution was
made by the Church's commitment to defend and promote human rights. In
situations strongly influenced by ideology, in which polarization
obscured the awareness of a human dignity common to all, the Church
affirmed clearly and forcefully that every individual--whatever his or
her personal convictions--bears the image of God and therefore deserves
respect. Often, the vast majority of people identified themselves with
this kind of affirmation, and this led to a search for forms of protest
and for political solutions more respectful of the dignity of the person.

From this historical process new forms of democracy have emerged which
offer a hope for change in fragile political and social structures
weighed down by a painful series of injustices and resentments, as well
as by a heavily damaged economy and serious social conflicts. Together
with the whole Church, I thank God for the often heroic witness borne in
such difficult circumstances by many pastors, entire Christian
communities, individual members of the faithful, and other people of good
will; at the same time I pray that he will sustain the efforts being made
by everyone to build a better future. This is, in fact, a responsibility
which falls not only to the citizens of the countries in question, but to
all Christians and people of good will. It is a question of showing that
the complex problems faced by those peoples can be resolved through
dialogue and solidarity, rather than by a struggle to destroy the enemy
through war.

23. Among the many factors involved in the fall of oppressive regimes,
some deserve special mention. Certainly, the decisive factor which gave
rise to the changes was the violation of the rights of workers. It cannot
be forgotten that the fundamental crisis of systems claiming to express
the rule and indeed the dictatorship of the working class began with the
great upheavals which took place in Poland in the name of solidarity. It
was the throngs of working people which foreswore the ideology which
presumed to speak in their name. On the basis of a hard, lived experience
of work and of oppression, it was they w ho recovered and, in a sense,
rediscovered the content and principles of the Church s social doctrine.

Also worthy of emphasis is the fact that the fall of this kind of "bloc"
or empire was accomplished almost everywhere by means of peaceful
protest, using only the weapons of truth and justice. While Marxism held
that only by exacerbating social conflicts was it possible to resolve
them through violent confrontation, the protests which led to the
collapse of Marxism tenaciously insisted on trying every avenue of
negotiation, dialogue, and witness to the truth, appealing to the
conscience of the adversary and seeking to reawaken in him a sense of
shared human dignity.

It seemed that the European order resulting from the Second World War
and
sanctioned by the Yalta Agreements could only be overturned by another
war. Instead, it has been overcome by the non-violent commitment of
people who, while always refusing to yield to the force of power,
succeeded time after time in finding effective ways of bearing witness to
the truth. This disarmed the adversary, since violence always needs to
justify itself through deceit, and to appear, however falsely, to be
defending a right or responding to a threat posed by others.[54] Once
again I thank God for having sustained people s hearts amid difficult
trials, and I pray that this example will prevail in other places and
other circumstances. May people learn to fight for justice without
violence, renouncing class struggle in their internal disputes, and war
in international ones.

24. The second factor in the crisis was certainly the inefficiency of the
economic system, which is not to be considered simply as a technical
problem, but rather a consequence of the violation of the human rights to
private initiative, to ownership of property and to freedom in the
economic sector. To this must be added the cultural and national
dimension: it is not possible to understand the human person on the basis
of economics alone, nor to define the person simply on the basis of class
membership. A human being is understood in a more complete way when
situated within the sphere of culture through language, history, and the
position one takes towards the fundamental events of life, such as birth,
love, work and death. At the heart of every culture lies the attitude a
person takes to the greatest mystery: the mystery of God. Different
cultures are basically different ways of facing the question of the
meaning of personal existence. When this question is eliminated, the
culture and moral life of nations are corrupted. For this reason the
struggle to defend work was spontaneously linked to the struggle for
culture and for national rights.

But the true cause of the new developments was the spiritual void brought
about by atheism, which deprived the younger generations of a sense of
direction and in many cases led them, in the irrepressible search for
personal identity and for the meaning of life, to rediscover the
religious roots of their national cultures, and to rediscover the person
of Christ himself as the existentially adequate response to the desire in
every human heart for goodness, truth and life. This search was supported
by the witness of those who, in difficult circumstances and under
persecution, remained faithful to God. Marxism had promised to uproot the
need for God from the human heart, but the results have shown that it is
not possible to succeed in this without throwing the heart into turmoil.

25. The events of 1989 are an example of the success of willingness to
negotiate and of the Gospel spirit in the face of an adversary determined
not to be bound by moral principles. These events are a warning to those
who, in the name of political realism, wish to banish law and morality
from the political arena. Undoubtedly, the struggle which led to the
changes of 1989 called for clarity, moderation, suffering and sacrifice.
In a certain sense, it was a struggle born of prayer, and it would have
been unthinkable without immense trust in God, the Lord of history, who
carries the human heart in his hands. It is by uniting their own
sufferings for the sake of truth and freedom to the sufferings of Christ
on the cross that people are able to accomplish the miracle of peace and
are in a position to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice
which gives in to evil and the violence which, under the illusion of
fighting evil, only makes it worse.

Nevertheless, it cannot be forgotten that the manner in which the
individual exercises freedom is conditioned in innumerable
ways. While these certainly have an influence on freedom, they do not
determine it; they make the exercise of freedom more difficult or less
difficult, but they cannot destroy it. Not only is it wrong from the
ethical point of view to disregard human nature, which is made for
freedom. but in practice it is impossible to do so. Where society is so
organized as to reduce arbitrarily or even suppress the sphere in which
freedom is legitimately exercised. the result is that the life of society
becomes progressively disorganized and goes into decline.

Moreover. humankind. created for freedom, bears within itself the wound
of original sin which constantly draws persons toward evil and puts them
in need of redemption. Not only is this doctrine an integral part of
Christian revelation; it also has great hermeneutical value insofar as it
helps one to understand human reality. The human person tends towards
good, but is also capable of evil. One can transcend one s immediate
interest and still remain bound to it. The social order will be all the
more stable, the more it takes this fact into account and does not place
in opposition personal interest and the interests of society as a whole,
but rather seeks ways to bring them into fruitful harmony. In fact where
self-interest is violently suppressed, it is replaced by a burdensome
system of bureaucratic control which dries up the wellsprings of
initiative and creativity. When people think they possess the secret of a
perfect social organization which makes evil impossible. they also think
that they can use any means, including violence and deceit, in order to
bring that organization into being. Politics then becomes a "secular
religion" which operates under the illusion of creating paradise in this
world. But no political society--which possesses its own autonomy and
laws[55] --can ever be confused with the Kingdom of God. The Gospel
parable
of the weeds among the wheat (cf. Mt 13:24-30; 36-43) teaches that it is
for God alone to separate the subjects of the Kingdom from the subjects
of the Evil One, and that this judgment will take place at the end of
time. By presuming to anticipate judgment here and now, people put
themselves in the place of God and set themselves against the patience of
God.

Through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. the victory of the Kingdom of
God has been achieved once and for all. Nevertheless. the Christian life
involves a struggle against temptation and the forces of evil. Only at
the end of history will the Lord return in glory for the final judgment
(cf. Mt 25:31) with the establishment of a new heaven and a new earth
(cf. 2 Pt 3:13; Rev 21:1); but as long as time lasts the struggle between
good and evil continues even in the human heart itself.

What Sacred Scripture teaches us about the prospects of the Kingdom of
God is not without consequences for the life of temporal societies,
which, as the adjective indicates, belong to the realm of time, with all
that this implies of imperfection and impermanence. The Kingdom of God,
being in the world without being of the world, throws light on the order
of human society, while the power of grace penetrates that order and
gives it life. In this way the requirements of a society worthy of man
are better perceived, deviations are corrected, the courage to work for
what is good is reinforced. In union with all people of good will,
Christians, especially the laity, are called to this task of imbuing
human realities with the Gospel.[56]

26. The events of 1989 took place principally in the countries of Eastern
and Central Europe. However, they have worldwide importance because
they
have positive and negative consequences which concern the whole human
family. These consequences are not mechanistic or fatalistic in
character, but rather are opportunities for human freedom to cooperate
with the merciful plan of God who acts within history.

The first consequence was an encounter in some countries between the
Church and the workers' movement, which came about as a result of an
ethical and explicitly Christian reaction against a widespread situation
of injustice. For about a century the workers' movement had fallen in
part under the dominance of Marxism, in the conviction that the working
class, in order to struggle effectively against oppression, had to
appropriate its economic and materialistic theories.

In the crisis of Marxism, the natural dictates of the consciences of
workers have reemerged in a demand for justice and a recognition of the
dignity of work, in conformity with the social doctrine of the
Church.[57] The worker movement is part of a more general movement
among
workers and other people of good will for the liberation of the human
person and for the affirmation of human rights. It is a movement which
today has spread to many countries, and which, far from opposing the
Catholic Church, looks to her with interest.

The crisis of Marxism does not rid the world of the situations of
injustice and oppression which Marxism itself exploited and on which it
fed. To those who are searching today for a new and authentic theory and
praxis of liberation, the Church offers not only her social doctrine and,
in general, her teaching about the human person redeemed in Christ, but
also her concrete commitment and material assistance in the struggle
against marginalization and suffering.

In the recent past, the sincere desire to be on the side of the oppressed
and not to be cut off from the course of history has led many believers
to seek in various ways an impossible compromise between Marxism and
Christianity. Moving beyond all that was short-lived in these attempts,
present circumstances are leading to a reaffirmation of the positive
value of an authentic theology of integral human liberation.[58]
Considered from this point of view, the events of 1989 are proving to be
important also for the countries of the Third World, which are searching
for their own path to development, just as they were important for the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

27. The second consequence concerns the peoples of Europe themselves.
Many individual, social, regional and national injustices were committed
during and prior to the years in which Communism dominated; much hatred
and ill will have accumulated. There is a real danger that these will
re-explode after the collapse of dictatorship, provoking serious
conflicts and casualties, should there be a lessening of the moral
commitment and conscious striving to bear witness to the truth which were
the inspiration for past efforts. It is to be hoped that hatred and
violence will not triumph in people's hearts, especially among those who
are struggling for justice, and that all people will grow in the spirit
of peace and forgiveness.

What is needed are concrete steps to create or consolidate international
structures capable of intervening through appropriate arbitration in the
conflicts which arise between nations, so that each nation can uphold its
own rights and reach a just agreement and peaceful settlement vis-a-vis
the rights of others. This is especially needed for the nations of
Europe, which are closely united in a bond of common culture and an
age-old history. A great effort is needed to rebuild morally and
economically the countries which have abandoned Communism. For a long
time the most elementary economic relationships were distorted, and basic
virtues of economic life, such as truthfulness, trustworthiness and hard
work were denigrated. A patient material and moral reconstruction is
needed, even as people, exhausted by longstanding privation, are asking
their governments for tangible and immediate results in the form of
material benefits and an adequate fulfillment of their legitimate
aspirations.

The fall of Marxism has naturally had a great impact on the division of
the planet into worlds which are closed to one another and in jealous
competition. It has further highlighted the reality of interdependence
among peoples, as well as the fact that human work, by its nature, is
meant to unite peoples, not divide them. Peace and prosperity, in fact,
are goods which belong to the whole human race: it is not possible to
enjoy them in a proper and lasting way if they are achieved and
maintained at the cost of other peoples and nations, by violating their
rights or excluding them from the sources of well-being.

28. In a sense, for some countries of Europe the real post-war period is
just beginning. The radical reordering of economic systems, hitherto
collectivized, entails problems and sacrifices comparable to those which
the countries of Western Europe had to face in order to rebuild after the
Second World War. It is right that in the present difficulties the
formerly Communist countries should be aided by the united effort of
other nations. Obviously they themselves must be the primary agents of
their own development, but they must also be given a reasonable
opportunity to accomplish this goal, something that cannot happen without
the help of other countries. Moreover, their present condition, marked by
difficulties and shortages, is the result of an historical process in
which the formerly Communist countries were often objects and not
subjects. Thus they find themselves in the present situation not as a
result of free choice or mistakes which were made, but as a consequence
of tragic historical events which were violently imposed on them, and
which prevented them from following the path of economic and social
development.

Assistance from other countries, especially the countries of Europe which
were part of that history and which bear responsibility for it,
represents a debt in justice. But it also corresponds to the interest and
welfare of Europe as a whole, since Europe cannot live in peace if the
various conflicts which have arisen as a result of the past are to become
more acute because of a situation of economic disorder, spiritual
dissatisfaction and desperation.

This need, however, must not lead to a slackening of efforts to sustain
and assist the countries of the Third World, which often suffer even more
serious conditions of poverty and want.[59] What is called for is a
special effort to mobilize resources, which are not lacking in the world
as a whole, for the purpose of economic growth and common development,
redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values on the basis of which
economic and political choices are made. Enormous resources can be
made
available by disarming the huge military machines which were constructed
for the
conflict between East and West. These resources could become even more
abundant if, in place of war, reliable procedures for the resolution of
conflicts could be set up, with the resulting spread of the principle of
arms control and arms reduction, also in the countries of the Third
World, through the adoption of appropriate measures against the arms
trade.[60] But it will be necessary above all to abandon a mentality in
which the poor--as individuals and as peoples--are considered a burden,
as irksome intruders trying to consume what others have produced. The
poor ask for the right to share in enjoying material goods and to make
good use of their capacity for work, thus creating a world that is more
just and prosperous for all. The advancement of the poor constitutes a
great opportunity for the moral, cultural and even economic growth of all
humanity.

29. Finally, development must not be understood solely in economic terms,
but in a way that is fully human.[61] It is not only a question of
raising all peoples to the level currently enjoyed by the richest
countries, but rather of building up a more decent life through united
labor, of concretely enhancing every individual's dignity and creativity.
as well as his capacity to respond to his personal vocation, and thus to
God's call. The apex of development is the exercise of the right and duty
to seek God, to know him and to live in accordance with that
knowledge.[62] In the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the
principle that force predominates over reason w as carried to the
extreme. A person was compelled to submit to a conception of reality
imposed on him by coercion, and not reached by virtue of his own reason
and the exercise of his own freedom. This principle must be overturned
and total recognition must be given to the rights of the human
conscience, which is bound only to the truth, both natural and revealed.
The recognition of these rights represents the primary foundation of
every authentically free political order.[63] It is important to reaffirm
this latter principle for several reasons:

because the old forms of totalitarianism and authoritarianism are not
yet completely vanquished; indeed there is a risk that they will regain
their strength. This demands renewed efforts of cooperation and
solidarity between all countries;

because in the developed countries there is sometimes an excessive
promotion of purely utilitarian values, with an appeal to the appetites
and inclinations towards immediate gratification, making it difficult to
recognize and respect the hierarchy of the true values of human existence;

because in some countries new forms of religious fundamentalism are
emerging which covertly, or even openly, deny to citizens of faiths other
than that of the majority the full exercise of their civil and religious
rights, preventing them from taking part in the cultural process, and
restricting both the Church 's right to preach the Gospel and the rights
of those who hear this preaching to accept it and to be converted to
Christ. No authentic progress is possible without respect for the natural
and fundamental right to know the truth and live according to that truth.
The exercise and development of this right includes the right to discover
and freely to accept Jesus Christ, who is humanity's true good.[64]

30. In Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII strongly affirmed the natural character of
the right to private property, using various arguments against the
socialism of his time.[65] This right, which is fundamental for the
autonomy and development of the person, has always been defended by
the
Church up to our own day. At the same time, the Church teaches that the
possession of material goods is not an absolute right, and that its
limits are inscribed in its very nature as a human right.

While the Pope proclaimed the right to private ownership, he affirmed
with equal clarity that the "use" of goods, while marked by freedom, is
subordinated to their original common destination as created goods, as
well as to the will of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Gospel. Pope Leo
wrote: "those whom fortune favors are admonished..that they should
tremble at the warnings of Jesus Christ..and that a most strict account
must be given to the Supreme Judge for the use of all they possess"; and
quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas, he added: "But if the question be asked,
how must one's possessions be used? the Church replies without hesitation
that man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as
common to all...," because "above the laws and judgments of men stands
the law, the judgment of Christ."[66]

The Successors of Leo XIII have repeated this twofold affirmation: the
necessity and therefore the legitimacy of private ownership, as well as
the limits which are imposed on it.[67] The Second Vatican Council
likewise clearly restated the traditional doctrine in words which bear
repeating: "In making use of the exterior things we lawfully possess, we
ought to regard them not just as our own but also as common, in the sense
that they can profit not only the owners but others too"; and a little
later we read: "Private property or some ownership of external goods
affords each person the scope needed for personal and family autonomy,
and should be regarded as an extension of human freedom.... Of its nature
private property also has a social function which is based on the law of
the common purpose of goods."[68] I have returned to this same doctrine,
first in my address to the Third Conference of the Latin American Bishops
at Puebla, and later in the encyclicals Laborem Exercens and Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis.[69]

31. Rereading this teaching on the right to property and the common
destination of material wealth as it applies to the present time, the
question can be raised concerning the origin of the material goods which
sustain human life, satisfy people's needs and are an object of their
rights.

The original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who
created both the earth and humankind, and who gave the earth to
humankind, so that we might have dominion over it by our work and enjoy
its fruits (Gen 1:28). God gave the earth to the whole human race for the
sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone. This
is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth 's goods. The
earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human
needs, is God's first gift for the sustenance of human life. But the
earth does not yield its fruits without a particular human response to
God's gift, that is to say, without work. It is through work that we,
using our intelligence and exercising our freedom, succeed in dominating
the earth and making it a fitting home. In this way, one makes part of
the earth one's own, precisely the part which one has acquired through
work; this is the origin of individual property. Obviously, one also has
the responsibility not to hinder others from having their own part of
God's gift; indeed, one must cooperate with others so that together all
can dominate the earth.

In history, these two factors--work and the land--are to be found at the
beginning of every human society. However, they do not always stand in
the same relationship to each other. At one time the natural fruitfulness
of the earth appeared to be, and was in fact, the primary factor of
wealth, while work was, as it were, the help and support for this
fruitfulness. In our time, the role of human work is becoming
increasingly important as the productive factor both of nonmaterial and
of material wealth. Moreover, it is becoming clearer how a person's work
is naturally interrelated with the work of others. More than ever, work
is work with others and work for others: it is a matter of doing
something for someone else. Work becomes ever more fruitful and
productive to the extent that people become more knowledgeable of the
productive potentialities of the earth and more profoundly cognizant of
the needs of those for whom their work is done.

32. In our time, in particular, there exists another form of ownership
which is becoming no less important than land: the possession of
know-how, technology and skill. The wealth of the industrialized nations
is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural resources.

Mention has just been made of the fact that people work with each other,
sharing in a "community of work" which embraces ever widening circles. A
person who produces something other than for his own use generally does
so in order that others may use it after they have paid a just price,
mutually agreed upon through free bargaining. It is precisely the ability
to foresee both the needs of others and the combinations of productive
factors most adapted to satisfying those needs that constitutes another
important source of wealth in modern society. Besides, many goods cannot
be adequately produced through the work of an isolated individual; they
require the cooperation of many people in working towards a common goal.
Organizing such a productive effort, planning its duration in time,
making sure that it corresponds in a positive way to the demands which it
must satisfy, and taking the necessary risks--all this too is a source of
wealth in today's society. In this way, the role of disciplined and
creative human work and, as an essential part of that work, initiative
and entrepreneurial ability becomes increasingly evident and
decisive.[70]

This process, which throws practical light on a truth about the person
which Christianity has constantly affirmed, should be viewed carefully
and favorably. Indeed, besides the earth, humankind's principal resource
is the person himself. His intelligence enables him to discover the
earth's productive potential and the many different ways in which human
needs can be satisfied. It is his disciplined work in close collaboration
with others that makes possible the creation of ever more extensive
working communities which can be relied upon to transform natural and
human environments. Important virtues are involved in this process, such
as diligence, industriousness, prudence in undertaking reasonable risks,
reliability and fidelity in interpersonal relationships, as well as
courage in carrying out decisions which are difficult and painful but
necessary, both for the overall working of a business and in meeting
possible setbacks.

The modern business economy has positive aspects. Its basis is human
freedom exercised in the economic field, just as it is exercised in many
other fields. Economic activity is indeed but one sector in a great
variety of human activities, and like every other sector, it includes the
right to freedom, as well as the duty of making responsible use of
freedom. But it is important to note that there are specific differences
between the trends of modern society and those of the past, even the
recent past. Whereas at one time the decisive factor of production was
the land, and later capital--understood as a total complex of the
instruments of production--today the decisive factor is increasingly the
person, that is, one's knowledge, especially one's scientific knowledge,
one's capacity for interrelated and compact organization, as well as
one's ability to perceive the needs of others and to satisfy them.

33. However, the risks and problems connected with this kind of process
should be pointed out.

The fact is that many people, perhaps the majority today, do not have the
means which would enable them to take their place in an effective and
humanly dignified way within a productive system in which work is truly
central. They have no possibility of acquiring the basic knowledge which
would enable them to express their creativity and develop their
potential. They have no way of entering the network of knowledge and
intercommunication which would enable them to see their qualities
appreciated and utilized. Thus, if not actually exploited, they are to a
great extent marginalized; economic development takes place over their
heads, so to speak, when it does not actually reduce the already narrow
scope of their old subsistence economies. They are unable to compete
against the goods which are produced in ways which are new and which
properly respond to needs, needs which they had previously been
accustomed to meeting through traditional forms of organization. Allured
by the dazzle of an opulence which is beyond their reach, and at the same
time driven by necessity, these people crowd the cities of the Third
World where they are often without cultural roots, and where they are
exposed to situations of violent uncertainty, without the possibility of
becoming integrated. Their dignity is not acknowledged in any real way,
and sometimes there are even attempts to eliminate them from history
through coercive forms of demographic control which are contrary to human
dignity.

Many other people, while not completely marginalized, live in situations
in which the struggle for a bare minimum is uppermost. These are
situations in which the rules of the earliest period of capitalism still
flourish in conditions of "ruthlessness" in no way inferior to the
darkest moments of the first phase of industrialization. In other cases
the land is still the central element in the economic process, but those
who cultivate it are excluded from ownership and are reduced to a state
of quasi-servitude.[71] In these cases, it is still possible today, as in
the days of Rerum Novarum, to speak of inhuman exploitation. In spite of
the great changes which have taken place in the more advanced societies,
the human inadequacies of capitalism and the resulting domination of
things over people are far from disappearing. In fact, for the poor, to
the lack of material goods has been added a lack of knowledge and
training which prevents them from escaping their state of humiliating
subjection.

Unfortunately, the great majority of people in the Third World still live
in such conditions. It would be a mistake, however, to understand this
"world " in purely geographic terms. In some regions and in some social
sectors of that world, development programs have been set up which are
centered on the use not so much of the material resources available but
of the "human resources."

Even in recent years it was thought that the poorest countries would
develop by isolating themselves from the world market and by depending
only on their own resources. Recent experience has shown that countries
which did this have suffered stagnation and recession, while the
countries which experienced development were those which succeeded in
taking part in the general interrelated economic activities at the
international level. It seems therefore that the chief problem is that of
gaining fair access to the international market, based not on the
unilateral principle of the exploitation of the natural resources of
these countries but on the proper use of human resources.[72]

However, aspects typical of the Third World also appear in developed
countries, where the constant transformation of the methods of production
and consumption devalues certain acquired skills and professional
expertise, and thus requires a continual effort of retraining and
updating. Those who fail to keep up with the times can easily be
marginalized, as can the elderly, the young people who are incapable of
finding their place in the life of society and, in general, those who are
weakest or part of the so-called Fourth World. The situation of women too
is far from easy in these conditions.

34. It would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of
international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument
for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs. But this is
true only for those needs which are "solvent," insofar as they are
endowed with purchasing power, and for those resources which are
"marketable," insofar as they are capable of obtaining a satisfactory
price. But there are many human needs which find no place on the market.
It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human
needs to remain unsatisfied, and not to allow those burdened by such
needs to perish. It is also necessary to help these needy people to
acquire expertise, to enter the circle of exchange, and to develop their
skills in order to make the best use of their capacities and resources.
Even prior to the logic of a fair exchange of goods and the forms of
justice appropriate to it, there exists something which is due to the
person because he is a person, by reason of his lofty dignity.
Inseparable from that required "something" is the possibility to survive
and, at the same time, to make an active contribution to the common good
of humanity.

In Third World contexts, certain objectives stated by Rerum Novarum
remain valid, and, in some cases, still constitute a goal yet to be
reached, if a person's work and very being are not to be reduced to the
level of a mere commodity. These objectives include a sufficient wage for
the support of the family, social insurance for old age and unemployment,
and adequate protection for the conditions of employment.

35. Here we find a wide range of opportunities for commitment and effort
in the name of justice on the part of trade unions and other workers'
organizations. These defend workers' rights and protect their interests
as persons, while fulfilling a vital cultural role, so as to enable
workers to participate more fully and honorably in the life of their
nation and to assist them along the path of development.

In this sense, it is right to speak of a struggle against an economic
system, if the latter is understood as a method of upholding the absolute
predominance of capital, the possession of the means of production and of
the land, in contrast to the free and personal nature of human work.[73]
In the struggle against such a system, what is being proposed as an
alternative is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be
state capitalism, but rather a society of free work of enterprise and of
participation. Such a society is not directed against the market, but
demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of
society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the
whole of society are satisfied.

The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication
that a business is functioning well. When a firm makes a profit, this
means that productive factors have been properly employed and
corresponding human needs have been duly satisfied. But profitability is
not the only indicator of a firm's condition. It is possible for the
financial accounts to be in order, and yet for the people--who make up
the firm's most valuable asset--to be humiliated and their dignity
offended. Besides being morally inadmissible, this will eventually have
negative repercussions on the firm's economic efficiency. In fact, the
purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is to be
found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways
are endeavoring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular
group at the service of the whole of society. Profit is a regulator of
the life of a business, but it is not the only one; other human and moral
factors must also be considered which, in the long term, are at least
equally important for the life of a business.

We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called
"Real Socialism" leaves capitalism as the only model of economic
organization. It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies
which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to
provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will
enable them to share in development. This goal calls for programmed and
responsible efforts on the part of the entire international community.
Stronger nations must offer weaker ones opportunities for taking their
place in international life, and the latter must learn how to use these
opportunities by making the necessary efforts and sacrifices and by
ensuring political and economic stability, the certainty of better
prospects for the future, the improvement of workers' skills, and the
training of competent business leaders who are conscious of their
responsibilities.[74]

At present, the positive efforts which have been made along these lines
are being affected by the still largely unsolved problem of the foreign
debt of the poorer countries. The principle that debts must be paid is
certainly just. However, it is not right to demand or expect payment when
the effect would be the imposition of political choices leading to hunger
and despair for entire peoples. It cannot be expected that the debts
which have been contracted should be paid at the price of unbearable
sacrifices. In such cases it is necessary to find--as in fact is partly
happening--ways to lighten, defer or even cancel the debt, compatible
with the fundamental right of peoples to subsistence and progress.

36. It would now be helpful to direct our attention to the specific
problems and threats emerging within the more advanced economies and
which are related to their particular characteristics. In earlier stages
of development, people always lived under the weight of necessity. Their
needs were few and were determined, to a degree, by the objective
structures of their physical make-up. Economic activity was directed
towards satisfying these needs. It is clear that today the problem is not
only one of supplying people with a sufficient quantity of goods, but
also of responding to a demand for quality: the quality of the goods to
be produced and consumed, the quality of the services to be enjoyed, the
quality of the environment and of life in general.

To call for an existence which is qualitatively more satisfying is of
itself legitimate, but one cannot fail to draw attention to the new
responsibilities and dangers connected with this phase of history. The
manner in which new needs arise and are defined is always marked by a
more or less appropriate concept of the human person and of the person's
true good. A given culture reveals its overall understanding of life
through the choices it makes in production and consumption. It is here
that the phenomenon of consumerism arises. In singling out new needs and
new means to meet them, one must be guided by a comprehensive picture of
the person which respects all the dimensions of his being and which
subordinates his material and instinctive dimensions to his interior and
spiritual ones. If, on the contrary, a direct appeal is made to human
instincts--while ignoring in various ways the reality of the person as
intelligent and free--then consumer attitudes and lifestyles can be
created which are objectively improper and often damaging to the person's
physical and spiritual health. Of itself, an economic system does not
possess criteria for correctly distinguishing new and higher forms of
satisfying human needs from artificial new needs which hinder the
formation of a mature personality. Thus a great deal of educational and
cultural work is urgently needed, including the education of consumers in
the responsible use of their power of choice, the formation of a strong
sense of responsibility among producers and among people in the mass
media in particular, as well as the necessary intervention by public
authorities.

A striking example of artificial consumption contrary to the health and
dignity of the human person, and certainly not easy to control, is the
use of drugs. Widespread drug use is a sign of a serious malfunction in
the social system; it also implies a materialistic and, in a certain
sense, destructive "reading" of human needs. In this way the innovative
capacity of a free economy is brought to a one-sided and inadequate
conclusion. Drugs, as well as pornography and other forms of consumerism
which exploit the frailty of the weak, tend to fill the resulting
spiritual void.

It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life
which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards "having"
rather than "being," and which wants to have more, not in order to be
more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself.[75] It
is therefore necessary to create lifestyles in which the quest for truth,
beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common
growth
are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and
investments. In this regard, it is not a matter of the duty of charity
alone, that is, the duty to give from one s "abundance," and sometimes
even out of one's needs, in order to provide what is essential for the
life of a poor person. I am referring to the fact that even the decision
to invest in one place rather than another, in one productive sector
rather than another, is always a moral and cultural choice. Given the
utter necessity of certain economic conditions and of political
stability, the decision to invest, that is, to offer people an
opportunity to make good use of their own labor, is also determined by an
attitude of human sympathy and trust in Providence, which reveal the
human quality of the person making such decisions.

37. Equally worrying is the ecological question which accompanies the
problem of consumerism and which is closely connected to it. In their
desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, people consume
the resources of the earth and their own lives in an excessive and
disordered way. At the root of the senseless destruction of the natural
environment lies an anthropological error, which unfortunately is
widespread in our day. Humankind, which discovers its capacity to
transform and in a certain sense create the world through its own work,
forgets that this is always based on God's prior and original gift of the
things that are. People think that they can make arbitrary use of the
earth, subjecting it without restraint to their wills, as though the
earth did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose,
which human beings can indeed develop but must not betray. Instead of
carrying out one's role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation,
a person sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a
rebellion on the part of nature, which is more tyrannized than governed
by him.[76]

In all this, one notes first the poverty or narrowness of the human
outlook, motivated as people are by a desire to possess things rather
than to relate them to the truth, and lacking that disinterested,
unselfish and aesthetic attitude that is born of wonder in the presence
of being and of the beauty which enables one to see in visible things the
message of the invisible God who created them. In this regard, humanity
today must be conscious of its duties and obligations towards future
generations.

38. In addition to the irrational destruction of the natural environment,
we must also mention the more serious destruction of the human
environment, something which is by no means receiving the attention it
deserves. Although people are rightly worried--though much less than they
should be--about preserving the natural habitats of the various animal
species threatened with extinction, because they realize that each of
these species makes its particular contribution to the balance of nature
in general, too little effort is made to safeguard the moral conditions
for an authentic "human ecology. " Not only has God given the earth to
humanity, which must use it with respect for the original good purpose
for which it was given, but man too is God's gift to man. A person must
therefore respect the natural and moral structure with which he has been
endowed. In this context, mention should be made of the serious problems
of modern urbanization, of the need for urban planning which is concerned
with how people are to live, and of the attention which should be given
to a "social ecology" of work.

The human person receives from God its essential dignity and with it the
capacity to transcend every social order so as to move towards truth and
goodness. But one is also conditioned by the social structure in which
one lives, by the education one has received and by the environment.
These elements can either help or hinder a person's living in accordance
with the truth. The decisions which create a human environment can give
rise to specific structures of sin which impede the full realization of
those who are in any way oppressed by them. To destroy such structures
and replace them with more authentic forms of living in community is a
task which demands courage and patience.[77]

39. The first and fundamental structure for "human ecology" is the
family, in which someone receives his first formative ideas about truth
and goodness, and learns what it means to love and to be loved, and thus
what it actually means to be a person. Here we mean the family founded on
marriage, in which the mutual gift of self by husband and wife creates an
environment in which children can be born and develop their
potentialities, become aware of their dignity and prepare to face their
unique and individual destiny. But it often happens that people are
discouraged from creating the proper conditions for human reproduction
and are led to consider themselves and their lives as a series of
sensations to be experienced rather than as a work to be accomplished.
The result is a lack of freedom, which causes a person to reject a
commitment to enter into a stable relationship with another person and to
bring children into the world, or which leads people to consider children
as one of the many "things" which an individual can have or not have,
according to taste, and which compete with other possibilities.

It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of life.
The family is indeed sacred: it is the place in which life--the gift of
God--can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to
which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes
authentic human growth. In the face of the so-called culture of death,
the family is the heart of the culture of life.

Human ingenuity seems to be directed more towards limiting, suppressing
or destroying the sources of life--including recourse to abortion, which
unfortunately is so widespread in the world--than towards defending and
opening up the possibilities of life. The encyclical Sollicitudo Rei
Socialis denounced systematic anti-childbearing campaigns which, on the
basis of a distorted view of the demographic problem and in a climate of
"absolute lack of respect for the freedom of choice of the parties
involved," often subject them "to intolerable pressures...in order to
force them to submit to this new form of oppression."[78] These policies
are extending their field of action by the use of new techniques, to the
point of poisoning the lives of millions of defenseless human beings, as
if in a form of "chemical warfare."

These criticisms are directed not so much against an economic system as
against an ethical and cultural system. The economy in fact is only one
aspect and one dimension of the whole of human activity. If economic life
is absolutized, if the production and consumption of goods become the
center of social life and society ' s only value, not subject to any
other value, the reason is to be found not so much in the economic system
itself as in the fact that the entire socio-cultural system, by ignoring
the ethical and religious dimension, has been weakened, and ends by
limiting itself to the production of goods and services alone.[79]

All of this can be summed up by repeating once more that economic
freedom
is only one element of human freedom. When it becomes autonomous,
when
man is seen more as a producer or consumer of goods than as a subject
who
produces and consumes in order to live, then economic freedom loses its
necessary relationship to the human person and ends up by alienating and
oppressing him.[80]

40. It is the task of the State to provide for- the defense and
preservation of common goods such as the natural and human
environments,
which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces. Just as in the time
of primitive capitalism the State had the duty of defending the basic
rights of workers, so now, with the new capitalism, the State and all of
society have the duty of defending those collective goods which, among
others, constitute the essential framework for the legitimate pursuit of
personal goals on the part of each individual.

Here we find a new limit on the market: there are collective and
qualitative needs which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms. There
are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods which
by their very nature cannot and must not be bought or sold. Certainly the
mechanisms of the market offer secure advantages: they help to utilize
resources better; they promote the exchange of products; above all they
give central place to the person's desires and preferences, which, in a
contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person.
Nevertheless, these mechanisms carry the risk of an "idolatry" of the
market, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which by their
nature are not and cannot be mere commodities.

41. Marxism criticized capitalist bourgeois societies, blaming them for
the commercialization and alienation of human existence. This rebuke is
of course based on a mistaken and inadequate idea of alienation, derived
solely from the sphere of relationships of production and ownership, that
is, giving them a materialistic foundation and moreover denying the
legitimacy and positive value of market relationships even in their own
sphere. Marxism thus ends up by affirming that only in a collective
society can alienation be eliminated. However, the historical experience
of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not
do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of
basic necessities and economic inefficiency.

The historical experience of the West, for its part, shows that even if
the Marxist analysis and its foundation of alienation are false,
nevertheless alienation--and the loss of the authentic meaning of
life--is a reality in Western societies too. This happens in consumerism,
when people are ensnared in a web of false and superficial gratifications
rather than being helped to experience their personhood in an authentic
and concrete way. Alienation is found also in work, when it is organized
so as to ensure maximum returns and profits with no concern whether the
worker, through his own labor, grows or diminishes as a person, either
through increased sharing in a genuinely supportive community or through
increased isolation in a maze of relationships marked by destructive
competitiveness and estrangement, in which he is considered only a means
and not an end.

The concept of alienation needs to be led back to the Christian vision of
reality, by recognizing in alienation a reversal of means and ends. When
man does not recognize in himself and in others the value and grandeur of
the human person, he effectively deprives himself of the possibility of
benefitting from his humanity and of entering into that relationship of
solidarity and communion with others for which God created him. Indeed,
it is through the free gift of self that one truly finds oneself.[81] This
gift is made possible by the human person's essential "capacity for
transcendence." One cannot give oneself to a purely human plan for
reality, to an abstract ideal or to a false utopia. As a person, one can
give oneself to another person or to other persons, and ultimately to
God, who is the author of our being and who alone can fully accept our
gift.[82] A person is alienated if he refuses to transcend himself and to
live the experience of self-giving and of the formation of an authentic
human community oriented towards his final destiny, which is God. A
society is alienated if its forms of social organization, production and
consumption make it more difficult to offer this gift of self and to
establish this solidarity between people.

Exploitation, at least in the forms analyzed and described by Karl Marx,
has been overcome in Western society. Alienation, however, has not been
overcome as it exists in various forms of exploitation, when people use
one another, and when they seek an ever more refined satisfaction of
their individual and secondary needs, while ignoring the principal and
authentic needs which ought to regulate the manner of satisfying the
other ones too.[83] A person who is concerned solely or primarily with
possessing and enjoying, who is no longer able to control his instincts
and passions, or to subordinate them by obedience to the truth, cannot be
free: obedience to the truth about God and humankind is the first
condition of freedom, making it possible for a person to order his needs
and desires and to choose the means of satisfying them according to a
correct scale of values, so that the ownership of things may become an
occasion of personal growth. This growth can be hindered as a result of
manipulation by the means of mass communication, which impose fashions
and trends of opinion through carefully orchestrated repetition, without
it being possible to subject to critical scrutiny the premises on which
these fashions and trends are based.

42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that,
after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social
system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now
making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model
which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are
searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic
system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business,
the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the
means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic
sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it
would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy,"
"market economy" or simply "free economy." But if by "capitalism" is
meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not
circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the
service of human freedom in its totality and sees it as a particular
aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then
the reply is certainly negative.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and
exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the
reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries.
Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast
multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral
poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries
certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate
and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution.
Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread
which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief
that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly
entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.

43. The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly
effective can only arise within the framework of different historical
situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront
concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural
aspects, as these interact with one another.[84] For such a task the
Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal
orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the
positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same
time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.
This teaching also recognizes the legitimacy of workers' efforts to
obtain full respect for their dignity and to gain broader areas of
participation in the life of industrial enterprises so that, while
cooperating with others and under the direction of others, they can in a
certain sense "work for themselves"[85] through the exercise of their
intelligence and freedom.

The integral development of the human person through work does not
impede
but rather promotes the greater productivity and efficiency of work
itself, even though it may weaken consolidated power structures. A
business cannot be considered only as a "society of capital goods"; it is
also a "society of persons" in which people participate in different ways
and with specific responsibilities, whether they supply the necessary
capital for the company's activities or take part in such activities
through their labor. To achieve these goals there is still need for a
broad associated workers' movement, directed towards the liberation and
promotion of the whole person.

In the light of today's "new things," we have reread the relationship
between individual or private property and the universal destination of
material wealth. One fulfills oneself by using one's intelligence and
freedom. In so doing a person utilizes the things of this world as
objects and instruments and makes them his own. The foundation of the
right to private initiative and ownership is to be found in this
activity. By means of his work a person commits himself, not only for his
own sake but also for others and with others. Each person collaborates in
the work of others and for their good. One works in order to provide for
the needs of one's family, one's community, one's nation, and ultimately
all humanity.[86] Moreover, a person collaborates in the work of his
fellow employees, as well as in the work of suppliers and in the
customers' use of goods, in a progressively expanding chain of
solidarity. Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or
agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes
illegitimate, however, when it is not utilized or when it serves to
impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit which is not the
result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but
rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation,
speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people.[87]
Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in
the sight of God and humanity.'

The obligation to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow also
presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is
systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to
reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an
ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace.[88] Just
as the person fully realizes himself in the free gift of self, so too
ownership morally justifies itself in the creation, at the proper time
and in the proper way, of opportunities for work and human growth for all.

44. Pope Leo XIII was aware of the need for a sound theory of the State
in order to ensure the normal development of the human person's spiritual
and temporal activities, both of which are indispensable.[89] For this
reason, in one passage of Rerum Novarum he presents the organization of
society according to the three powers--legislative, executive and
judicial--something which at the time represented a novelty in Church
teaching.[90] Such an ordering reflects a realistic vision of humankind's
social nature, which calls for legislation capable of protecting the
freedom of all. To that end, it is preferable that each power be balanced
by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it
within proper bounds. This is the principle of the "rule of law," in
which the law is sovereign, and not the arbitrary will of individuals.

In modern times, this concept has been opposed by totalitarianism, which,
in its Marxist-Leninist form, maintains that some people, by virtue of a
deeper knowledge of the laws of the development of society, or through
membership of a particular class or through contact with the deeper
sources of the collective consciousness, are exempt from error and can
therefore arrogate to themselves the exercise of absolute power. It must
be added that totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the
objective sense.

If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which a person
achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for
guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a
class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one
another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force
of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means
at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion,
with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only
to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root
of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the
transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the
invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights
which no one may violate--no individual, group, class, nation or State.
Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going
against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by
attempting to annihilate it.[91]

45. The culture and praxis of totalitarianism also involve a rejection of
the Church. The State or the party which claims to be able to lead
history towards perfect goodness, and which sets itself above all values,
cannot tolerate the affirmation of an objective criterion of good and
evil beyond the will of those in power, since such a criterion, in given
circumstances, could be used to judge their actions. This explains why
totalitarianism attempts to destroy the Church, or at least to reduce her
to submission, making her an instrument of its own ideological
apparatus.[92]

Furthermore, the totalitarian State tends to absorb within itself the
nation, society, the family, religious groups and individuals themselves.
In defending her own freedom, the Church is also defending the human
person, who must obey God rather than men (cf. Acts 5:29), as well as
defending the family, the various social organizations and nations--all
of which enjoy their own spheres of autonomy and sovereignty.

46. The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the
participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the
governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those
who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when
appropriate.[93] Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling
groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for
ideological ends.

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the
basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the
necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the
individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the
"subjectivity" of society through the creation of structures of
participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to
claim that agnosticism and skeptical relativism are the philosophy and
the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political
life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere
to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since
they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it
is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must
be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide
and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be
manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy
without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

Nor does the Church close her eyes to the danger of fanaticism or
fundamentalism among those who, in the name of an ideology which
purports
to be scientific or religious, claim the right to impose on others their
own concept of what is true and good. Christian truth is not of this
kind. Since it is not an ideology, the Christian faith does not presume
to imprison changing sociopolitical realities in a rigid schema, and it
recognizes that human life is realized in history in conditions that are
diverse and imperfect. Furthermore, in constantly reaffirming the
transcendent dignity of the person, the Church's method is always that of
respect for freedom.[94]

But freedom attains its full development only by accepting the truth. In
a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation and people are
exposed to the violence of passion and to manipulation, both open and
hidden. The Christian upholds freedom and serves it, constantly offering
to others the truth which he has known (cf. Jn 8:31-32), in accordance
with the missionary nature of his vocation. While paying heed to every
fragment of truth which he encounters in the life experience and in the
culture of individuals and of nations, he will not fail to affirm in
dialogue with others all that his faith and the correct use of reason
have enabled him to understand.[95]

47. Following the collapse of Communist totalitarianism and of many other
totalitarian and "national security" regimes, today we are witnessing a
predominance, not without signs of opposition, of the democratic ideal,
together with lively attention to and concern for human rights. But for
this very reason it is necessary for peoples in the process of reforming
their systems to give democracy an authentic and solid foundation through
the explicit recognition of those rights.[96] Among the most important of
these rights, mention must be made of the right to life, an integral part
of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother's womb from
the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a
moral environment conducive to the growth of the child's personality; the
right to develop one's intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing
the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the
earth's material resources, and to derive from that work the means to
support oneself and one's dependents; and the right freely to establish a
family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of
one's sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these
rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth
of one's faith and in conformity with one's transcendent dignity as a
person.[97]

Even in countries with democratic forms of government, these rights are
not always fully respected. Here we are referring not only to the scandal
of abortion, but also to different aspects of a crisis within democracies
themselves, which seem at times to have lost the ability to make
decisions aimed at the common good. Certain demands which arise within
society are sometimes not examined in accordance with criteria of justice
and morality, but rather on the basis of the electoral or financial power
of the groups promoting them. With time, such distortions of political
conduct create distrust and apathy, with a subsequent decline in the
political participation and civic spirit of the general population, which
feels abused and disillusioned. As a result, there is a growing inability
to situate particular interests within the framework of a coherent vision
of the common good. The latter is not simply the sum total of particular
interests; rather it involves an assessment and integration of those
interests on the basis of a balanced hierarchy of values; ultimately, it
demands a correct understanding of the dignity and the rights of the
person.[98]

The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and
is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or
constitutional solution. Her contribution to the political order is
precisely her vision of the dignity of the person revealed in all its
fullness in the mystery of the Incarnate Word.[99]

48. These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the
economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market
economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political
vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual
freedom and private property,
as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the
principal task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those
who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel
encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability,
together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of
improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from
illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief
obstacles to development and to the economic order.

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the
exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary
responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals
and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The
State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens
unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the
free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the
State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who
argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a
duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will
ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are
lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies
create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of
harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the
State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or
business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not
equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are
justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as
possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business
systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid
enlarging excessively the sphere of state intervention to the detriment
of both economic and civil freedom.

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to
the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called "Welfare State."
This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many
needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation
unworthy
of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent
years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed
the "Social Assistance State." Malfunctions and defects in the Social
Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the
tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must
be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the
internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of
its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to
coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society,
always with a view to the common good.[100]

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the
Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an
inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by
bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients,
and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact,
it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people
who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It
should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response
which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the
deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants,
the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for
assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped
effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in
addition to the necessary care.

49. Faithful to the mission received from Christ her Founder, the Church
has always been present and active among the needy, offering them
material assistance in ways that neither humiliate nor reduce them to
mere objects of assistance, but which help them to escape their
precarious situation by promoting their dignity as persons. With
heartfelt gratitude to God it must be pointed out that active charity has
never ceased to be practiced in the Church; indeed, today it is showing a
manifold and gratifying increase. In this regard, special mention must be
made of volunteer work, which the Church favors and promotes by urging
everyone to cooperate in supporting and encouraging its undertakings.

In order to overcome today's widespread individualistic mentality, what
is required is a concrete commitment to solidarity and charity, beginning
in the family with the mutual support of husband and wife and the care
which the different generations give to one another. In this sense the
family too can be called a community of work and solidarity. It can
happen, however, that when a family does decide to live up fully to its
vocation, it finds itself without the necessary support from the State
and without sufficient resources. It is urgent therefore to promote not
only family policies, but also those social policies which have the
family as their principal object, policies which assist the family by
providing adequate resources and efficient means of support, both for
bringing up children and for looking after the elderly, so as to avoid
distancing the latter from the family unit and in order to strengthen
relations between generations.[101]

Apart from the family, other intermediate communities exercise primary
functions and give life to specific networks of solidarity. These develop
as real communities of persons and strengthen the social fabric,
preventing society from becoming an anonymous and impersonal mass, as
unfortunately often happens today. It is in interrelationships on many
levels that a person lives, and that society becomes more "personalized."
The individual today is often suffocated between two poles represented by
the State and the marketplace. At times it seems as though he exists only
as a producer and consumer of goods, or as an object of state
administration. People lose sight of the fact that life in society has
neither the market nor the State as its final purpose, since life itself
has a unique value which the State and the market must serve. Man
remains
above all a being who seeks the truth and strives to live in that truth,
deepening his understanding of it through a dialogue which involves past
and future generations.[102]

50. From this open search for truth, which is renewed in every
generation, the culture of a nation derives its character. Indeed, the
heritage of values which has been received and handed down is always
challenged by the young. To challenge does not necessarily mean to
destroy or reject a priori, but above all to put these values to the test
in one's own life, and through this existential verification to make them
more real, relevant and personal, distinguishing the valid elements in
the tradition from false and erroneous ones, or from obsolete forms which
can be usefully replaced by others more suited to the times.

In this context, it is appropriate to recall that evangelization too
plays a role in the culture of the various nations, sustaining culture in
its progress towards the truth, and assisting in the work of its
purification and enrichment.[103] However, when a culture becomes inward
looking, and tries to perpetuate obsolete ways of living by rejecting any
exchange or debate with regard to the truth about man, then it becomes
sterile and is heading for decadence.

51. All human activity takes place within a culture and interacts with
culture. For an adequate formation of a culture, the involvement of the
whole person is required, whereby one exercises one's creativity,
intelligence, and knowledge of the world and of people. Furthermore, a
person displays his capacity for self-control, personal sacrifice,
solidarity and readiness to promote the common good. Thus the first and
most important task is accomplished within the heart. The way in which
one is involved in building one's own future depends on the understanding
a person has of himself and of his own destiny. It is on this level that
the Church's specific and decisive contribution to true culture is to be
found. The Church promotes those aspects of human behavior which favor
a
true culture of peace, as opposed to models in which the individual is
lost in the crowd, in which the role of one's initiative and freedom is
neglected, and in which one's greatness is posited in the arts of
conflict and war. The Church renders this service to human society by
preaching the truth about the creation of the world, which God has placed
in human hands so that people may make it fruitful and more perfect
through their work; and by preaching the truth about the Redemption,
whereby the Son of God has saved humankind and at the same time has
united all people, making them responsible for one another. Sacred
Scripture continually speaks to us of an active commitment to our
neighbor and demands of us a shared responsibility for all of humanity.

This duty is not limited to one's own family, nation or state, but
extends progressively to all humankind, since no one can consider himself
extraneous or indifferent to the lot of another member of the human
family. No one can say that he is not responsible for the well-being of
his brother or sister (cf. Gen 4:9; Lk 10:29-37; Mt 25:31-46). Attentive
and pressing concern for one's neighbor in a moment of need--made easier
today because of the new means of communication which have brought
people
closer together--is especially important with regard to the search for
ways of resolving international conflicts other than by war. It is not
hard to see that the terrifying power of the means of destruction--to
which even medium and small-sized countries have access--and the ever
closer links between the peoples of the whole world make it very
difficult or practically impossible to limit the consequences of a
conflict.

52. Pope Benedict XV and his successors clearly understood this
danger.[104] I myself, on the occasion of the recent tragic war in the
Persian Gulf, repeated the cry: "War--never again ! " No, never again
war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill,
throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and
leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the
more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which
provoked the war. Just as the time has finally come when in individual
states a system of private vendetta and reprisal has given way to the
rule of law, so too a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the
international community. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that at
the root of war there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices
suffered, legitimate aspirations frustrated, poverty, and the
exploitation of multitudes of desperate people who see no real
possibility of improving their lot by peaceful means.

For this reason, another name for peace is development.[105] Just as
there is a collective responsibility for avoiding war, so too there is a
collective responsibility for promoting development. Just as within
individual societies it is possible and right to organize a solid economy
which will direct the functioning of the market to the common good, so
too there is a similar need for adequate interventions on the
international level. For this to happen, a great effort must be made to
enhance mutual understanding and knowledge, and to increase the
sensitivity of consciences. This is the culture which is hoped for, one
which fosters trust in the human potential of the poor, and consequently
in their ability to improve their condition through work or to make a
positive contribution to economic prosperity. But to accomplish this, the
poor--be they individuals or nations--need to be provided with realistic
opportunities. Creating such conditions calls for a concerted worldwide
effort to promote development, an effort which also involves sacrificing
the positions of income and of power enjoyed by the more developed
economies.[106]

This may mean making important changes in established lifestyles, in
order to limit the waste of environmental and human resources, thus
enabling every individual and all the peoples of the earth to have a
sufficient share of those resources. In addition, the new material and
spiritual resources must be utilized which are the result of the work and
culture of peoples who today are on the margins of the international
community, so as to obtain an overall human enrichment of the family of
nations.

53. Faced with the poverty of the working class, Pope Leo XIII wrote: "We
approach this subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights
which manifestly pertain to us.... By keeping silence we would seem to
neglect the duty incumbent on us."[107] During the last hundred years the
Church has repeatedly expressed her thinking, while closely following the
continuing development of the social question. She has certainly not done
this in order to recover former privileges or to impose her own vision.
Her sole purpose has been care and responsibility for the human person,
who has been entrusted to her by Christ himself: for this person, whom,
as the Second Vatican Council recalls, is the only creature on earth
which God willed for its own sake, and for which God has his plan, that
is, a share in eternal salvation. We are not dealing here with humanity
in the "abstract," but with the real, "concrete," "historical" person. We
are dealing with each individual, since each one is included in the
mystery of Redemption, and through this mystery Christ has united himself
with each one forever.[108] It follows that the Church cannot abandon
humanity, and that "this human person is the primary route that the
Church must travel in fulfilling her mission...the way traced out by
Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the
Incarnation and the Redemption."[109]

This, and this alone, is the principle which inspires the Church's social
doctrine. The Church has gradually developed that doctrine in a
systematic way, above all in the century that has followed the date we
are commemorating, precisely because the horizon of the Church's whole
wealth of doctrine is the human being in his concrete reality as sinful
and righteous.

54. Today, the Church's social doctrine focuses especially on the person
as he is involved in a complex network of relationships within modern
societies. The human sciences and philosophy are helpful for interpreting
the person 's central place within society and for enabling one to
understand oneself better as a "social being." However, a person's true
identity is only fully revealed to him through faith, and it is precisely
from faith that the Church's social teaching begins. While drawing upon
all the contributions made by the sciences and philosophy, her social
teaching is aimed at helping everyone on the path of salvation.

The encyclical Rerum Novarum can be read as a valid contribution to
socio-economic analysis at the end of the nineteenth century, but its
specific value derives from the fact that it is a document of the
Magisterium and is fully a part of the Church's evangelizing mission,
together with many other documents of this nature. Thus the Church's
social teaching is itself a valid instrument of evangelization. As such,
it proclaims God and his mystery of salvation in Christ to every human
being, and for that very reason reveals man to himself. In this light,
and only in this light, does it concern itself with everything else: the
human rights of the individual, and in particular of the "working class,"
the family and education, the duties of the State, the ordering of
national and international society, economic life, culture, war and
peace, and respect for life from the moment of conception until death.

55. The Church receives "the meaning of the person" from Divine
Revelation. "In order to know man, authentic man, man in his fullness,
one must know God," said Pope Paul VI, and he went on to quote Saint
Catherine of Siena, who, in prayer, expressed the same idea: "In your
nature, O eternal Godhead, I shall know my own nature."[110]

Christian anthropology therefore is really a chapter of theology, and for
this reason, the Church's social doctrine, by its concern for the person
and by its interest in him and in the way he conducts himself in the
world, "belongs to the field...of theology and particularly of moral
theology."[111]

The theological dimension is needed both for interpreting and solving
present-day problems in human society. It is worth noting that this is
true in contrast both to the "atheistic" solution, which deprives
humankind of one of its basic dimensions, namely the spiritual one, and
to permissive and consumerist solutions, which under various pretexts
seek to convince man that he is free from every law and from God himself,
thus imprisoning him within a selfishness which ultimately harms both him
and others.

When the Church proclaims God's salvation to humanity, when she offers
and communicates the life of God through the sacraments, when she gives
direction to human life through the commandments of love of God and
neighbor, she contributes to the enrichment of human dignity. But just as
the Church can never abandon her religious and transcendent mission on
behalf of humankind, so too she is aware that today her activity meets
with particular difficulties and obstacles. That is why she devotes
herself with ever new energies and methods to an evangelization which
promotes the whole human being. Even on the eve of the third millennium
she continues to be "a sign and safeguard of the transcendence of the
human person,"[112] as indeed she has always sought to be from the
beginning of her existence, walking together with the human race through
history. The encyclical Rerum Novarum itself is a significant sign of
this.

56. On the hundredth anniversary of that encyclical I wish to thank all
those who have devoted themselves to studying, expounding and making
better known Christian social teaching. To this end, the cooperation of
the local Churches is indispensable, and I would hope that the present
anniversary will be a source of fresh enthusiasm for studying, spreading
and applying that teaching in various contexts.

In particular, I wish this teaching to be made known and applied in the
countries which, following the collapse of "Real Socialism," are
experiencing a serious lack of direction in the work of rebuilding. The
Western countries, in turn, run the risk of seeing this collapse as a
one-sided victory of their own economic system, and thereby failing to
make necessary corrections in that system. Meanwhile, the countries of
the Third World are experiencing more than ever the tragedy of
underdevelopment, which is becoming more serious with each passing day.

After formulating principles and guidelines for the solution of the
worker question, Pope Leo XIII made this incisive statement: "Everyone
should put his hand to the work which falls to his share, and that at
once and straightway, lest the evil which is already so great become
through delay absolutely beyond remedy," and he added, "in regard to the
Church, her cooperation will never be found lacking."[113]

57. As far as the Church is concerned, the social message of the Gospel
must not be considered a theory, but above all else a basis and a
motivation for action. Inspired by this message, some of the first
Christians distributed their goods to the poor, bearing witness to the
fact that, despite different social origins, it was possible for people
to live together in peace and harmony. Through the power of the Gospel,
down the centuries monks tilled the land, men and women religious founded
hospitals and shelters for the poor, confraternities as well as
individual men and women of all states of life devoted themselves to the
needy and to those on the margins of society, convinced as they were that
Christ's words "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren,
you did it to me" (Mt 25:40) were not intended to remain a pious wish,
but were meant to become a concrete life commitment.

Today more than ever, the Church is aware that her social message will
gain credibility more immediately from the witness of actions than as a
result of its internal logic and consistency. This awareness is also a
source of her preferential option for the poor, which is never exclusive
or discriminatory towards other groups. This option is not limited to
material poverty, since it is well known that there are many other forms
of poverty, especially in modern society--not only economic but cultural
and spiritual poverty as well. The Church's love for the poor, which is
essential for her and a part of her constant tradition, impels her to
give attention to a world in which poverty is threatening to assume
massive proportions in spite of technological and economic progress. In
the countries of the West, different forms of poverty are being
experienced by groups which live on the margins of society, by the
elderly and the sick, by the victims of consumerism, and even more
immediately by so many refugees and migrants. In the developing
countries, tragic crises loom on the horizon unless internationally
coordinated measures are taken before it is too late.

58. Love for others, and in the first place love for the poor, in whom
the Church sees Christ himself, is made concrete in the promotion of
justice. Justice will never be fully attained unless people see in the
poor person, who is asking for help in order to survive, not an annoyance
or a burden, but an opportunity for showing kindness and a chance for
greater enrichment. Only such an awareness can give the courage needed
to
face the risk and the change involved in every authentic attempt to come
to the aid of another. It is not merely a matter of "giving from one's
surplus," but of helping entire peoples which are presently excluded or
marginalized to enter into the sphere of economic and human development.
For this to happen, it is not enough to draw on the surplus goods which
in fact our world abundantly produces; it requires above all a change of
lifestyles, of models of production and consumption, and of the
established structures of power which today govern societies. Nor is it a
matter of eliminating instruments of social organization which have
proved useful, but rather of orienting them according to an adequate
notion of the common good in relation to the whole human family. Today we
are facing the so-called "globalization" of the economy, a phenomenon
which is not to be dismissed, since it can create unusual opportunities
for greater prosperity. There is a growing feeling, however, that this
increasing internationalization of the economy ought to be accompanied by
effective international agencies which will oversee and direct the
economy to the common good, something that an individual state, even if
it were the most powerful on earth, would not be in a position to do. In
order to achieve this result, it is necessary that there be increased
coordination among the more powerful countries, and that in international
agencies the interests of the whole human family be equally represented.
It is also necessary that in evaluating the consequences of their
decisions, these agencies always give sufficient consideration to peoples
and countries which have little weight in the international market, but
which are burdened by the most acute and desperate needs, and are thus
more dependent on support for their development. Much remains to be done
in this area.

59. Therefore, in order that the demands of justice may be met, and
attempts to achieve this goal may succeed, what is needed is the gift of
grace, a gift which comes from God. Grace, in cooperation with human
freedom, constitutes that mysterious presence of God in history which is
Providence.

The newness which is experienced in following Christ demands to be
communicated to other people in their concrete difficulties, struggles,
problems and challenges, so that these can then be illuminated and made
more human in the light of faith. Faith not only helps people to find
solutions; it makes even situations of suffering humanly bearable, so
that in these situations people will not become lost or forget their
dignity and vocation.

In addition, the Church's social teaching has an important
interdisciplinary dimension. In order better to incarnate the one truth
about man in different and constantly changing social, economic and
political contexts, this teaching enters into dialogue with the various
disciplines concerned with humankind. It assimilates what these
disciplines have to contribute, and helps them to open themselves to a
broader horizon, aimed at serving the individual person who is
acknowledged and loved in the fullness of his or her vocation.

Parallel with the interdisciplinary aspect, mention should also be made
of the practical and as it were experiential dimension of this teaching,
which is to be found at the crossroads where Christian life and
conscience come into contact with the real world. This teaching is seen
in the efforts of individuals, families, people involved in cultural and
social life, as well as politicians and statesmen to give it a concrete
form and application in history.

60. In proclaiming the principles for a solution of the worker question,
Pope Leo XIII wrote: "This most serious question demands the attention
and the efforts of others."[114] He was convinced that the grave problems
caused by industrial society could be solved only by cooperation between
all forces. This affirmation has become a permanent element of the
Church's social teaching, and also explains why Pope John XXIII addressed
his encyclical on peace to "all people of good will."

Pope Leo, however, acknowledged with sorrow that the ideologies of his
time, especially Liberalism and Marxism, rejected such cooperation. Since
then, many things have changed, especially in recent years. The world
today is ever more aware that solving serious national and international
problems is not just a matter of economic production or of juridical or
social organization, but also calls for specific ethical and religious
values, as well as changes of mentality, behavior and structures. The
Church feels a particular responsibility to offer this contribution and,
as I have written in the encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, there is a
reasonable hope that the many people who profess no religion will also
contribute to providing the social question with the necessary ethical
foundation."[115]

In that same encyclical I also addressed an appeal to the Christian
Churches and to all the great world religions, inviting them to offer the
unanimous witness of our common convictions regarding the dignity of the
human person, created by God.[116] In fact I am convinced that the
various religions, now and in the future, will have a preeminent role in
preserving peace and in building a society worthy of humanity.

Indeed, openness to dialogue and to cooperation is required of all people
of good will, and in particular of individuals and groups with specific
responsibilities in the areas of politics, economics and social life, at
both the national and international levels.

61. At the beginning of industrialized society, it was "a yoke little
better than that of slavery itself" which led my predecessor to speak out
in defense of the human person. Over the past hundred years the Church
has remained faithful to this duty. Indeed, she intervened in the
turbulent period of class struggle after the First World War in order to
defend people from economic exploitation and from the tyranny of the
totalitarian systems. After the Second World War, she put the dignity of
the person at the center of her social messages, insisting that material
goods were meant for all, and that the social order ought to be free of
oppression and based on a spirit of cooperation and solidarity. The
Church has constantly repeated that the person and society need not only
material goods but spiritual and religious values as well. Furthermore,
as she has become more aware of the fact that too many people live, not
in the prosperity of the Western world, but in the poverty of the
developing countries amid conditions which are still "a yoke little
better than that of slavery itself," she has felt and continues to feel
obliged to denounce this fact with absolute clarity and frankness,
although she knows that her call will not always win favor with everyone.

One hundred years after the publication of Rerum Novarum, the Church
finds herself still facing "new things" and new challenges. The centenary
celebration should therefore confirm the commitment of all people of good
will and of believers in particular.

62. The present encyclical has looked at the past, but above all it is
directed to the future. Like Rerum Novarum, it comes almost at the
threshold of a new century, and its intention, with God's help, is to
prepare for that moment.

In every age the true and perennial "newness of things" comes from the
infinite power of God, who says: "Behold, I make all things new" (Rev
21:5). These words refer to the fulfillment of history, when Christ
"delivers the Kingdom to God the Father...that God may be everything to
everyone" (1 Cor 15:24, 28). But the Christian well knows that the
newness which we await in its fullness at the Lord's second coming has
been present since the creation of the world, and in a special way since
the time when God became man in Jesus Christ and brought about a "new
creation" with him and through him (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15).

In concluding this encyclical I again give thanks to Almighty God, who
has granted his Church the light and strength to accompany humanity on
its earthly journey towards its eternal destiny. In the third millennium
too, the Church will be faithful in making humanity's way her own,
knowing that she does not walk alone, but with Christ her Lord. It is
Christ who made man's way his own, and who guides him, even when he is
unaware of it.

Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, constantly remained beside Christ in
his journey towards the human family and in its midst, and she goes
before the Church on the pilgrimage of faith. May her maternal
intercession accompany humanity towards the next millennium, in fidelity
to him who "is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (cf. Heb 13:8), Jesus Christ our Lord, in whose name I cordially impart my blessing
to all.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on May 1, the Memorial of Saint Joseph
the Worker, in the year 1991, the thirteenth of my pontificate.